Patents and research--an uneasy alliance

Critics of the patent system have argued that rather than promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, the patent system as it exists in the United States and perhaps elsewhere may actually inhibit such progress. Much of the criticism has been focused on patenting of research tools. The author attempts to evaluate the extent of this effect, and to suggest some possible modifications to the patent system to address its shortcomings. She considers the advantages attributed to the patenting system-providing incentives for finance and development and spurring creativity-with the disadvantages perceived by the academic community, including impediments to the communication of research findings and other transaction costs. Also examined are possible options for mitigating these problems, including legislative restrictions of certain subject matter from patentability, or strengthening the criteria used in review of patent applications, especially non-obviousness and utility. In addition, the author discusses potential "post-patent solutions," such as legislative or other restrictions on licensing.

The commercialization of human stem cells: ethical and policy issues

The first stage of the human embryonic stem (ES) cell research debate revolved around fundamental questions, such as whether the research should be done at all, what types of research may be done, who should do the research, and how the research should be funded. Now that some of these questions are being answered, we are beginning to see the next stage of the debate: the battle for property rights relating to human ES cells. The reason why property rights will be a key issue in this debate is simple and easy to understand: it costs a great deal of money to do this research, to develop new products, and to implement therapies; and private companies, researchers, and health professionals require returns on investments and reimbursements for goods and services. This paper considers arguments for and against property rights relating to ES cells defends the following points: (1) It should be legal to buy and sell ES cells and products. (2) It should be legal to patent ES cells, products, and related technologies. (3) It should not be legal to buy, sell, or patent human embryos. (4) Patents on ES cells, products, and related technologies should not be excessively broad. (5) Patents on ES cells, products, and related technologies should be granted only when applicants state definite, plausible uses for their inventions. (6) There should be a research exemption in ES cell patenting to allow academic scientists to conduct research in regenerative medicine. (7) It may be appropriate to take steps to prevent companies from using patents in ES cells, products, and related technologies only to block competitors. (8) As the field of regenerative medicine continues to develop, societies should revisit issues relating to property rights on a continuing basis in order to develop policies and develop regulations to maximize the social, medical, economic, and scientific benefits of ES cell research and product development.

Social capital from carbon property: creating equity for indigenous people

New incentives for protection and in situ use of forests and the services they provide raise hopes for the reversal of tropical and temperate deforestation. Past management of forests appropriated the rights of forest communities, providing incentives to convert natural forest into financial capital through logging, while destroying the underlying physical property. Carbon trading aims to provide a means to convert the forest property into financial capital, while protecting the physical property of forests, thereby providing new incentives for in situ forest management. The potential for carbon-emission trading as a contributor to these new incentives is tempered by concerns that it is another tool for capitalists to exploit the indigenous communities of the developing world. Estimates of annual emission trading amounting to US $200 billion raise alarm bells about the effect of such trade in the developing world. People are right to be concerned, as the history of exploitation of indigenous people, the appropriation of their rights, the loss of forests and their benefits is well documented. This exploitation resulted in the exclusion of forest communities from the basic tenets for development created by the wealth generated by traded property. However, one virtue of trade is that it can be made subject to constraints. Through international treaties and agreements, trade can be constrained and national governments obliged to observe the rules of trade. The value of tradable carbon credits will be discounted or invalid if they do not meet these criteria, providing all parties with strong incentives to achieve the necessary performance standards relating to both processes and contracts. For carbon trading to develop social capital from natural capital requires the admission of forest communities into the polity and management of forest resources. In this paper we argue for responsible carbon-emission trading based on the clear and appropriate definition of carbon entitlements, with the proviso that trading respects the rights and needs of indigenous people. We adopt this position as emissions trading now seems inevitable and there should be proper rules to control this trade where it affects forests and their inhabitants. It is imperative that the poor and indigenous people are not excluded from these systems. Trading systems and the property systems they depend on need to be more accountable, transparent and inclusive of those features which we propose.

Transgenic crops, biotechnology and ownership rights: what scientists need to know

Ownership of intellectual and tangible property (IP/TP) rights in agricultural biotechnology (ag-biotech) and transgenic plants has become critically important. For scientists in all institutions, whether industrialized or developing country, public or private sector, an understanding of IP/TP rights is fundamental in both research and development. Transgenic plants and ag-biotech products embody numerous components and processes, each of which may have IP/TP rights attached. To identify these rights, a transgenic plant or ag-biotech product must be dissected into its essential components and processes, with each 'piece' analysed under the IP/TP 'microscope'. This product deconstruction is an integral step in product clearance (PC) analysis leading to freedom to operate (FTO). To facilitate a PC analysis, the following points are important: (1) knowing what one has and where it's from, (2) organizing material transfer agreements and licences, (3) researching scientific and patent databases and relevant literature, (4) instituting a laboratory notebook policy, (5) keeping track of ownership of germplasm and plant genetic resources, and (6) promoting ongoing IP/TP management, awareness and training. However, a FTO opinion does not solve the IP/TP issues of releasing a transgenic plant or ag-biotech product; rather, it is a management tool for assessing the risks of litigation. When transferring transgenic plants or ag-biotech to developing nations, scientists from industrialized countries have the heightened responsibility of verifying that IP/TP issues are fully addressed and documented. Successful technology transfer goes beyond research, development and licensing; it is an holistic package leading to long-term partnerships in international development. Managing IP/TP requires capacity-building in scientists and technology transfer offices, in both industrialized and developing countries.

Common property systems, migration, and coastal ecosystems

Common property systems are a critical institution mediating the relationship between population change and environmental outcomes, especially in coastal and marine ecosystems. Evidence from El Salvador; Goa, India; and the Solomon Islands demonstrates how the social structures and institutions stemming from patterns of human migration variably influence environmental out-comes through their effects on common property resource institutions. In each of the case studies, the demographic phenomenon is not population growth or a change in numbers, but an underlying process that affects population size and growth rates: i.e. migration and associated social relations that result from or cause more migration. The following 3 cases studies provide the respective historical and cultural context to show that there is a nonlinear link between population and environment, which when explored reveals the importance of understanding how individuals and communities are embedded in sets of social relations that must be considered when evaluating environmental policies or when determining the causes of environmental degradation.

Commodification of human tissue: implications for feminist and development ethics

One effect of late capitalism--the commodification of practically everything--is to knock down the Chinese walls between the natural and productive realms, to use a Marxist framework. Women's labour in egg extraction and 'surrogate' motherhood might then be seen as what it is, labour which produces something of value. But this does not necessarily mean that women will benefit from the commodification of practically everything, in either North or South. In the newly developing biotechnologies involving stem cells, the reverse is more likely, particular given the the shortage in the North of the egg donors who will be increasingly necessary to therapeutic cloning. Although most of the ethical debate has focused on the status of the embryo, this is to define ethics with no reference to global or gender justice. There has been little or no debate about possible exploitation of women, particularly of ovum donors from the South. Countries of the South without national ethics committees or guidelines may be particularly vulnerable: although there is increasing awareness of the susceptibility of poorer countries to abuses in research ethics, very little has been written about how they might be affected by the enormously profitable new technologies exploiting human tissue. Even in the UK, although the new Medical Research Council guidelines make a good deal of the 'gift relationship', what they are actually about is commodification. If donors believe they are demonstrating altruism, but biotechnology firms and researchers use the discourse of commodity and profit, we have not 'incomplete commodification' but complete commodification with a plausibly human face.